Summary: There was no fault by the Council in a complaint which alleged fault in the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a development and its handling of subsequent applications to discharge conditions of the planning permission and vary the permission.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a development and its handling of subsequent applications to discharge conditions of the planning permission and vary the permission. Mr X says:
• The planning permission should not have been granted because of the level of information provided at the planning application stage – there was insufficient information to determine how the development would appear.
• The original planning application was approved at committee without information on site levels and how occupiers of the proposed development would access private and shared amenity spaces.
• It is impossible for the development to comply with condition 1 – which requires the development to be completed in accordance with approved drawings.
• The revised site plan which accompanied the application to discharge planning conditions 3, 6 and 12 proposed changes to the original planning permission which would neither deliver good design nor sustainable development.
2. Mr X wants the original planning permission revoked and the developer asked to submit a fresh application.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I reviewed the complaint and background information provided by Mr X and the Council. I considered details of the planning application on the Council’s website. I discussed matters with Mr X by telephone. I sent a draft decision statement to Mr X and the Council and invited comments from both parties.

Back to top

What I found

6. The Council received an application which proposed demolition of an existing single family dwelling and its replacement with a three storey apartment block.
7. Mr X and others objected to the application. The planning officer summarised their objections in the officer report for the planning committee. These included overdevelopment; lack of parking; not in keeping with the area; noise and disturbance during the construction phase; overlooking and loss of privacy; poor standard of accommodation; scheme is too dense; noise and disturbance associated with additional units; impacts on residential amenities; lack of renewable energy and electric vehicle charging points; loss of trees; impact on air quality; impact on local services; and drawings are misleading and erroneous details.
8. On the final objection regarding misleading drawings and erroneous details, the planning officer noted the applicant had made amendments to correct drafting errors that had been highlighted. Planning officers were satisfied the information received was adequate to enable the application to be considered and determined.
9. Mr X addressed the planning committee directly at its meeting.
10. In terms of the proposal’s impact on Mr X’s property, the planning officer explained the impact was acceptable given the design of the proposal, the layout of the building and the separation distance from Mr X’s home. The officer said the proposed building would be set back 2.25 metres from the boundary and Mr X’s property was approximately 4 metres from the boundary. The officer said the scheme would pass the 45 degree BRE test for loss of sunlight to rear elevation windows.
11. The officer noted there would be a close board fence with established trees and vegetation on the boundary which should mitigate any overlooking from ground floor windows. The officer proposed more protection through a landscaping condition.
12. The officer noted the flank elevation of Mr X’s home has windows at first floor and roof level which serves a bedroom while the proposed building would have roof lights at the first and roof levels. The officer said the windows in the proposed building could be conditioned to be obscure glazed above 1.70 metres from the relevant finished floor level.
13. The officer noted there would be a degree of overlooking of the rear garden area within Mr X’s property. But the officer considered this was not uncommon in a suburban location.
14. The officer report addressed the material planning considerations raised in objections to the application including the impact of the proposal on the amenities of future occupiers, its traffic or highway implications, impact on trees and wildlife and sustainability matters.
15. The minutes of the meeting show consideration was given to further comments raised during the meeting including whether there were incomplete submissions from the applicant; impact on the character of the area; impact on the amenities of adjoining occupiers; the quality of the proposed accommodation; parking and cycle storage; inadequate refuse/recycling; and flood risk.
16. Officers provided responses to all these points at the committee meeting.

Finding

17. When dealing with complaints about a council’s decision on a planning application, the role of the Ombudsman is to consider whether there was fault in the process leading to the council’s decision. The Ombudsman is not a planning appeal body and so cannot substitute his judgement for that of the council.
18. In this case, I do not find fault with the way the Council made its decision. The planning officer set out his appraisal of the advantages and disadvantages of the proposal in the committee report and I note his appraisal of the proposal’s impact on Mr X’s home. I am satisfied there was reasoned justification for the officer’s judgement.
19. Government guidance on validation is clear that there may be circumstances where supporting information provided by an applicant is inadequate or its quality may be a concern. However, these are not grounds for invalidating applications. The local planning authority can request clarification or further information during the determination process.
20. Government guidance also says a direction to an application to provide further information should be made only when necessary to assist the local planning authority in its determination of an application and must not affect the validity of an application, where it has been validated and registered.
21. In the report to the planning committee, the case planning officer noted the concerns the Council had received about inaccuracies in the drawings and inadequate information required to validate the application. The officer explained these were not matters that invalidated the application and the Council was satisfied it had sufficient information to determine the application.
22. I note Mr X’s dissatisfaction with the Council’s handling of the applications to discharge conditions of the planning permission and to vary the planning permission. Mr X’s concerns stem from his view the original application was tainted by fault. Mr X says the developer made submissions to the Council to discharge conditions which were refused by the Council. Mr X says this shows the development could not have progressed in accordance with the approved drawings. A new developer bought the site and submitted an application to vary the planning permission. Mr X considers the changes showed the original planning permission could never have been implemented.
23. But I do not find fault in the process leading up to the Council’s original decision. The planning process allows local planning authorities to impose conditions on planning permission which can only be discharged if the authorities are satisfied. That the Council was not satisfied and did not discharge conditions does not mean the original decision was flawed. Similarly, the fact that a second developer applied to vary the scheme does not mean the original permission could not be implemented. I note Mr X’s dissatisfaction with the use of conditions and the applicant’s ability to apply to vary the planning permission but these are legitimate aspects of the planning process and can only be changed by Parliament.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I closed this complaint because I did not find fault by the Council in the matters raised by Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman